Well my answer is i've decided to jettison nervous shock at this stage... Defamation Passing off Nuisance Trespass person Damages Limitation of actions res ipsa Occupier's Employer's/Vicarious Products (actually v. straight forward if you look at it with a clear head) Afew other loose ends (liability for dogs act-s22, Cont negligence/ waiver etc)
Yea,that should do me I hope... On Oct 12, 2:21 pm, padraig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Christ, how are you supposed to get all that down in one > question......*silently sobbing* > > On Oct 11, 10:31 pm, Mike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Hi I think its like this: > > > The radio station owe a duty of care to its listeners - if they were > > to tell a seriously horrific story it is forseeable that listeners > > could get a nervous shock the harm its not too remote as a reasonable > > consequence the wagon mound case. > > > The cause of action is against the Radio station - by breaking the > > news embargo there is NAI the Airline were cautious to prevent any > > forseeable harm - the second report from the station breaks the > > airlines causation - the (alleged) injury is a forseeable consequence > > of their negligence so they will be liable for the consequences the > > kind of damage is as would be expected . No Action can lie against the > > Airline there is a factual link for causation but no legal causation > > will apply (Conole v Redbank Oyster case) the Airline could not be > > held legally responsible for the shock though they set the chain of > > events in motion Breslin v Corcoran MIBI > > > If you apply Kelly v Hennessey she has no cause of action as the shock > > did not have an immediate effect (she managed to drive home) and when > > she saw Robert she got a shock which factually caused the harm - on > > the basis of the report but this shock is too remote - its not > > reasonably forseeable that you would think it was a ghost and that he > > never got on the plane. > > > The illness is as a result of Negligently inflicted emotional distress > > as per Devlin v the National maternity hospital - which refused to > > recognise an extension of the DOC for a hospital telling someone bad > > news which causes a psychatic Trauma as happend in Devlin, case law in > > England says it could be made Liable. > > > Fletcher v Comm of Public works - irrational fear (of catching a > > disease) was not recognised as it was not forseeable - they left open > > as to whether such claims would be recognised if the fear was > > reasonable - this and the English cases could help Debras case - > > though the floodgates could apply, though Kelly says that Public > > policy will not prevent a claim if a legitimate one exists that fits > > within its rules. > > > n Oct 11, 8:54 pm, SarahMcC <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > First off I took it to mean the proper defendant would be the airline > > > > because > > > > they caused the damage which she is claiming to > > > > suffer from. If she had heard from a reliable source, the claim would > > > > nevertheless be against whoever caused the damage. > > > > > However, the fact that he wasnt actually injured makes it more likely > > > > that the proper D is the radio station, as if they hadn't announced > > > > that they were all dead and she had no knowledge of the accident, or > > > > had been in contact with robert prior to being informed of it then she > > > > would not have an action. > > > > > If nothing had happened the plane but the station announced that all > > > > were killed, Debra could hardly have an action against the airline as > > > > they were not at fault in anyway. Therefore, it seems likely that it > > > > would be the raidio station as the statement wasn't true. However, if > > > > the statement that everyone was killed was true, then an action can > > > > only lie against the airline. > > > > > On 11 Oct, 17:54, Fee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > I don't know the answer to this but my take on it would be that the > > > > > proper defendant would be the radio station, because it was pointed > > > > > out in Alcock that seeing a disaster on TV could never amount to > > > > > sufficient proximity unless they did close ups, which the don't, but > > > > > if they did then the TV station would be the right person to take the > > > > > action against. So i wonder here if the fact that they said that all > > > > > the people were killed would make it comparable to doing the close > > > > > ups- > > > > > as in if it was 80 out of 100 died then she would have no claim as she > > > > > wouldn't know they were dead but the fact it was "all" meant that she > > > > > knew they were definitely dead...- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "FE-1 Study Group" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.ie/group/FE-1-Study-Group?hl=en-GB -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
